Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Eh who needs FEMA right now anyway
Comments
-
Damnit. I just spent 30 minutes watching South Carolina porn.Squirt said:
This is a more promising path for this thread than discussing Medicare while Hondo is interjecting.PurpleThrobber said:
Let's just hope #mycocks stay safe.
So:
Damn you Al Gore and your time sucking inter web -
RaceBannon said:
I saw another post about you being in Construction. Hope you don't have a construction management degree and read my post on my opinion of thatUW_Doog_Bot said:
Beyond the federalist argument, as I have argued ad nauseam elsewhere, the government is stupidly inefficient. Centrally planned, or socialist, markets time and again fail to deliver efficient results. They produce higher costs, poorer service, lower utility, and less access. They lead to all kinds of moral hazards, free riders, and perverse incentives. It's also a prime way to create incentives for corruption in government and rent seeking among many other pitfalls.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
I just illustrated yesterday? how correlated rising healthcare costs(both public and private) are with the passage of medicaid, medicare, and government involvement in the market. It's called crowding out.
P.s. I am pretty sure that I can make arguments against every insurance program you cited and that many of the failings you most likely subscribe to the free market are actually stage 2 or higher economic effects of those very government programs.
I'll be blacklisted from futures pods
-
2001400ex said:
My point was one time decisions versus a long standing history of multiple decisions. A point you can't fathom because it doesn't follow your narrative.SFGbob said:The Hondo method.
Talk out you ass, get called on it, back track, and now the strawman ass fuck is coming. Your "point" was that your interpretation of the meaning of "General Welfare" had been upheld by the SC since our founding.
You lied Kunt.
But we had a much longer standing history where that wasn't the interpretation. Your "point" that your interpretation is what the Founders had always intended was complete bullshit. -
FEMA? More like FAGMA amirite
-
Yeah yeahpawz said:BearsWiin said:Enjoy watching HGTV's Beachfront Bargain Hunt when people buy some bungalow five feet above sea level anywhere along the Gulf or Atlantic. Oh, it's on stilts, that'll save you
Wife has engineered several beachfront properties in the area over the years. They have to be designed to take seismic loads, obviously, but also dynamic loads of hillside coming down on them from above and wave loads from hundred-year storms. They end up being million-dollar reinforced concrete bunker complexes. But they never have to be rebuilt
NYT has a pretty good array of articles on the dysfunctional federal flood insurance program
But does it take victory-coitus loads?
Axing for a fren.
She was a fast machine
She kept her motor clean
She was the best damn woman I had ever seen
She had the sightless eyes
Telling me no lies
Knockin' me out with those American thighs
Taking more than her share
Had me fighting for air
She told me to come but I was already there
'Cause the walls start shaking
The earth was quaking
My mind was aching
And we were making it and you
Shook me all night long
Yeah you shook me all night long
mmmmbop -
War ended slavery. HTH2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
Sledog can't read. What does catalyst mean?Sledog said:
War ended slavery. HTH2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
White guys in the north were the catalyst.2001400ex said:
Sledog can't read. What does catalyst mean?Sledog said:
War ended slavery. HTH2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
I didn't say "the catalyst". There were many. Fuck you are dumb.Sledog said:
White guys in the north were the catalyst.2001400ex said:
Sledog can't read. What does catalyst mean?Sledog said:
War ended slavery. HTH2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
Thank the dead white guys and shut up.2001400ex said:
I didn't say "the catalyst". There were many. Fuck you are dumb.Sledog said:
White guys in the north were the catalyst.2001400ex said:
Sledog can't read. What does catalyst mean?Sledog said:
War ended slavery. HTH2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well.
